About the Journal | Modern Health Science

Focus and Scope

Modern Health Science encourage and publish research and studies in the below fields:

Public Health
Community Health
Environmental Health
Behavioral Health
Health Policy
Health Service
Health Education
Health Economics
Medical Ethics
Health Protection
Pediatrics
Nursing practice
Nursing education
Nursing policy
Nursing management

Index/List/Archive

Peer Review Process

We use a double-blind system for peer review; both reviewers’ and authors’ identities remain anonymous. The submitted manuscript will be reviewed by at least two experts: one editorial staff member as well as one to three external reviewers. The review process may take 4-12 weeks.

a) Editor Assigns Reviewers

Reviewer Selection: The editor chooses reviewers based on their expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are usually external experts who are knowledgeable about the topic of the manuscript. The reviewers are not given the author’s identity, affiliation, or other identifying details.

Conflict of Interest Check: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that might bias their review, such as previous collaborations with the authors or professional rivalry. If conflicts are detected, the editor assigns alternative reviewers.

b) Reviewing Process

Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, methodology, data quality, analysis, conclusions, and overall contribution to the field.

Feedback and Recommendation: Reviewers provide detailed comments, suggest necessary revisions, and recommend one of the following decisions: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject.

c) Feedback to Authors

Anonymous Reviewer Comments: The editor consolidates and anonymizes the reviewers' comments. Authors receive this feedback without seeing the reviewers’ names or affiliations, along with specific editorial guidance for revisions if applicable.

Revision and Resubmission: Authors revise the manuscript based on the feedback and resubmit it. The revised manuscript may go through additional rounds of review if significant changes were made.

d) Final Editorial Decision

The editor weighs the reviewers’ comments and recommendations before making the final decision. This might involve further consultation with the reviewers if discrepancies exist in their evaluations.

Publication Frequency

2025 Semi-Annual, published in June and December.

2024 Semi-Annual, published in June and December.

Article Processing Charge

If the paper is accepted for publication, you will be asked to pay Article Processing Charges (APC), 300USD/article. If you need hard copies, please find Journal store.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Copyright Policy

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License .

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

Informed Consent Policy

All investigators should ensure that the planning conduct and reporting of human research are in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013 (www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinkiethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-humansubjects/). All authors should seek approval to conduct research from an independent local, regional, or national review body (e.g., ethics committee, institutional review board). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the local, regional, or national review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. Approval by a responsible review body does not preclude editors from forming their own judgment whether the conduct of the research was appropriate. Patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable patient be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should disclose to these patients whether any potential identifiable material might be available via the Internet as well as in print after publication. Patient consent should be written and archived with the journal, the authors, or both, as dictated by local regulations or laws. Since the journal that archives the consent form will know the identity of the patient, MHS decided to let the author archive the consent form, and then provide a written statement to the journal to prove that they have received and archived the patient's written consent, thereby better protecting the confidentiality of the patient. Unnecessary identification details should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are de-identified, authors should provide assurance, and editors should so note, that such changes do not distort scientific meaning. The requirement for informed consent should be included in the journal’s instructions for authors. When informed consent has been obtained, it should be indicated in the published article.

Research Ethics Policy

When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed. Further guidance on animal research ethics is available from the International Association of Veterinary Editors’ Consensus Author Guidelines on Animal Ethics and Welfare (http://www.veteditors.org/consensus-author-guidelines-on-animal-ethics-and-welfare-for-editors).
Download a copy of the guidelines here: Word | PDF
Animal Ethics-Based Criteria for Manuscript Consideration
Manuscripts will be considered for publication only if the work detailed therein:
1) Follows international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for humane animal treatment and complies with relevant legislation;
2) Has been approved by the ethics review committee at the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted where such a committee exists;
3) For studies using client-owned animals, demonstrates a high standard (best practice) of veterinary care and involves informed client consent;
4) Meets all additional ethical standards set by Modern Health Science.
Prior to acceptance of a manuscript, to verify compliance with the above policies, the authors must sign a letter certifying that legal and ethical requirements have been met with regards to the humane treatment of animals described in the study;
Animal Ethics-Based Criteria for Manuscript Rejection
1) Manuscripts and authors that fail to meet the aforementioned requirements;
2) Studies that involve unnecessary pain, distress, suffering, or lasting harm to animals;
3) The Editor retains the right to reject manuscripts on the basis of ethical or welfare concerns.

AI Usage Policy

Authors must disclose any involvement of AI tools in writing, analysis, or data processing within their manuscripts. This disclosure should include specific details about the AI tools, algorithms, or models utilized.

Content Review & Editing:
All content generated with AI tools must undergo thorough author review and editing to ensure quality, accuracy.

AI Role Specification:
Authors should clearly specify the tasks performed by AI tools and their impact on the research and writing process. This includes detailing where and how AI was utilized in the creation of the manuscript.

Authorship Integrity:
Authors are responsible for all content, including AI-generated sections, and should not attribute authorship to AI tools. AI tools should not be listed as co-authors or contributors.

Data Analysis Transparency:
If AI is used for data analysis or chart generation, authors must declare its usage and explain the methodology employed.

Ethical Consideration:
Maintain transparency regarding AI usage and address any ethical issues related to AI-generated content. Uphold ethical standards throughout the research process to ensure integrity.

Authors are encouraged to use AI tools to enhance their research but must adhere to these guidelines to ensure ethical and transparent use of AI tools in academic publishing.